As you pointed out we have no idea what the real percentage of people getting caught attempting voter fraud is. Considering how easy it is I have a hard time believing it is as high as 3% that are getting caught. I just used that number because that was what the study was. Considering how fluky and avoidable one of their times getting caught was I'm led to believe that number is much lower (lol @ using an elected officials son). They were also trying to use crazy cases when in reality if you were going to commit voter fraud you'd choose more realistic people to vote for (aka: not felons, dead people, or someone 65 years older than you).

I've cleaned up the last page. Stop the personal attack type posts please.

If you do do voter impersonation you need to pick someone who's unlikely to vote. They do check to see if the person who is voting has voted before. That's one reason why scaling is an issue.

Ok we're on the same playing field now which is good. I want to see those defending Voter ID explaining why it doesn't in fact discriminate and/or why it is does achieve the legitimate aim of combating fraud.

I'm certainly no expert on the american voting system but so far the evidence and arguments presented in various politics threads has been very strongly against voter ID.

I get (and generally agree) with the argument that we don't need an actual problem to manifest before we take reasonable steps to make the system more robust. But when we believe that attempt at making the system more robust may not be very effective and comes with a social (or financial) cost - in this case that it discriminates racially (among other things) - then the onus shifts to either find a way to do it which doesn't discriminate or seek evidence that the problem of voter fraud is significant in practice.

He would be all over you on voter suppression too.

Would you agree that there is no reason to defend against discrimination if the law is combating fraud and there has been no proof of significant widespread negative effects that many other laws have proven to have? There have been links to studies and articles that guess that x number of people don't have IDs, but none have come up with a number of people who can't vote but otherwise would if they had an ID.

Minimum wage is a great example of a law that has discriminatory results that are way more significant than that of voter ID laws.

Have you noticed that almost all political threads on 2+2 seem to favor a more liberal line of thinking. Don't quote me on this but I think for every conservative here we have 7-8 liberals.

Liberals ITT have been hammering how there has been no evidence of voter fraud that would be fixed by voter ID laws. I show them an example and the refuse to acknowledge it. There whole argument is that people that are pro-voter ID are racist because the law doesn't fix a solution and is just to hurt a race. BOOM there goes that argument. Now do we want to sit down and talk about what laws are racist?

All, or nearly all, laws discriminate racially.

If there was a country where women were treated as 2nd class citizens and they were beaten or killed if they were raped, but there wasn't evidence of widespread rape would you agree those countries should NOT have rape laws since there is no evidence of rape being a frequent crime? (hint: Just because people aren't caught for a crime doesn't mean it isn't happening.)

I asked for multiple thing me and MLK would disagree about since I was told he would be fighting against people like me and you have come up with one example and it is highly controversially.

I am pro voter ID laws. However, I am very much against laws that significantly suppress the vote. IF I am for voter suppression it is only slightly more than you are.

It's "controversial" if MLK would fight against voter ID? LOL

No, it is controversial if they are racist.

Nah its not controversial. Its a safe bet he would be against voter id laws (like just about all of AA leaders today) and would see them as part of the long history of the oppression of the AA vote. Same with gerrymandering.

I don't think my boys Cain or Carson are against voter ID laws so I don't think it is fair to assume MLK would think voter ID laws are racist.

I do. He would be against them.

And thats just a start. I dont know your political beliefs. Do you like trumps law and order George Wallace shtick? He knew that game...

I hate doing this because I know it is going to make those of you saying MLK fought against people like me look very stupid, but I feel like I have no choice but to defend myself from this personal attack.

I agree with him on nearly everything he fought for: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and so much more. For you to look at one law that me and him may/ or may not have a disagreement amount and say we would be fighting against each other is absurd.

Please note that I find being called an opponent to MLK far worse of a personal attack than nearly any other personal attack I have ever seen on 2+2 and I am going to ask you to stop.

You asked what beliefs he would be against so i answered and gave my opinion and you call it a personal attack. Nice...ffs.

I did forget one. He would of been arguing with you on the unfair sentencing in our drug laws.


Answer this question for me. Stop answering!!

Ah yes, the modern day leaders of the civil rights movement and noted analogues to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: Ben Carson and Herman Cain.

No one said you oppose those things. But on the issues of today that today's version of MLK would fight against (like, for example, should the black vote be suppressed through thinly-veiled laws targeting them), you would oppose him.

If this offends you so much then maybe try changing your system of beliefs to stop supporting the oppression of black people.

Yes, I asked you to defend your personal attack. Which you could not do.

What? As of a few days ago I didn't know what the real differences were between cocaine and crack or their differences in their sentencing. I don't recall saying one way or the other if I supported any of these laws so I'm not sure how you would know my opinion on the matter.

Again you are reaching for straws. Me and MLK agree with so much that you are just making **** up now.

There are way too many bigger issues facing the black community than voter ID laws today. That is why you almost never hear black leaders of today talking about it. What % of their time is spent talking about voter suppression? 1%? .05%?

Me and MLK would have to much to agree upon.

I do not and never have supported the oppression of black people. I would argue you pro-MW skinheads have supported black oppression far more than I have.

I made no personal attack. I answered your question and said i think he would be against some of your views.

Cite the personal attack.


How you could not know that and live in the US is amazing in itself. But ok fair enough the drug sentencing might not be a fair one.

Voting rights were big for MLK and still would be today, but if "% of time spent talking about it" is the measure you'd go with, I'm pretty sure you and modern MLK would have a pretty fierce disagreement about whether Black Lives Matter.

You support laws that suppress their votes and you already stated these laws don't bother you even if the politicians who passed them did so intending for black votes to be suppressed. Pretty sure MLK would have a bone to pick with that!

If you don't want to be so offended by people pointing out that you're an enemy to civil rights then maybe change your ****ing views?

"Literacy tests are racist because their intent is to limit African American voting". "No we just want to make sure that people who vote understand who and what they're voting for": "Voter ID is racist because their intent is to limit African American voting". "No we just want to make sure to guard against fraud".

The thing is the literacy tests are just to make sure that people who vote understand what and who they're voting for had a stronger argument than the modern day voter fraud argument. There was a legitimate issue about African American (and white) illiteracy, unlike non existent voter fraud.

https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/stat...26062015315969

For all the talk about MLK and voting rights, the more prescient speech is "The Ballot or the Bullet"

I just looked back and I credited you with a post from bert. I guess I am just so used to bert posting link after link after tweet that my mind couldn't accept the fact that bert learned how to post his own thoughts. Either way, I do apologize.

I have known for a while crack was rock(s) and cocaine was a powder, but that was about all I knew about them. I have often wondered how you can possibly punishment people fairly for possession of all these different drugs considering how some are worse than others - it sounds like the answer is you don't. I've never seen any drug outside of pills and pot IRL.

I don't think we would. Do you think he'd support BLM? Most of what I have read about him was about him fighting real issues in non-violent ways.

I believe I am an ally to civil rights.